Pegs, Cords, and Ghuls: Meter of Classical Arabic Poetry Hazel Scott Haverford College Department of Linguistics, Swarthmore College Fall 2009 There are many reasons to read poetry, filled with heroics and folly, sweeping metaphors and engaging rhymes. It can reveal much about a shared cultural history and the depths of the human soul; for linguists, it also provides insights into the nature of language itself. As a particular subset of a language, poetry is one case study for understanding the use of a language and the underlying rules that govern it. This paper explores the metrical system of classical Arabic poetry and its theoretical representations. The prevailing classification is from the 8th century C.E., based on the work of the scholar al-Khaliil, and I evaluate modern attempts to situate the meters within a more universal theory. I analyze the meter of two early Arabic poems, and observe the descriptive accuracy of al-Khaliil’s system, and then provide an analysis of the major alternative accounts. By incorporating linguistic concepts such as binarity and prosodic constraints, the newer models improve on the general accessibility of their theories with greater explanatory potential. The use of this analysis to identify and account for the four most commonly used meters, for example, highlights the significance of these models over al-Khaliil’s basic enumerations. The study is situated within a discussion of cultural history and the modern application of these meters, and a reflection on the oral nature of these poems. The opportunities created for easier cross-linguistic comparisons are crucial for a broader understanding of poetry, enhanced by Arabic’s complex levels of metrical patterns, and with conclusions that can inform wider linguistic study.* Introduction Classical Arabic poetry is traditionally characterized by its use of one of the sixteen * I would like to thank my advisor, Professor K. David Harrison, my Arabic professors, Sooyong Kim and Walid Hamarneh, Haverford’s Writing Center, and my family and friends. 1 meters described by the grammarian al-Khaliil in the 8th century. This system is quantitative, relying on syllable weight and each meter is constructed from two basic units called watid (‘peg’) and sabab (‘cord’), which are each one to two syllables. Combinations of watid and sabab then form the different feet of a line that distinguish each meter. Al-Khaliil's system is further characterized by his arrangement of related meters, those differing only by the relative location of the watid within each foot, for example, into 'circles.' His model accurately describes most classical poems, once the catalogue of variants is considered. I look at two early poems written in the waafir meter, one of the four most common meters, and show the general success of mapping from al-Khaliil's model. The problem remains, though, of how to best reconcile this system and its Arabic-specific units of representation with a more universal metrical theory, and how to create a system that is explanatory, as well as descriptive. I evaluate the major modern linguistic models with regards to these issues. Many have attempted a reformulation of al-Khaliil’s meters. Linguists such as Maling (1973) argue that a generative metric reanalysis of al-Khaliil's model is most successful. She suggests that his method of organizing meters into circles is necessary to account for why there are exactly sixteen meters possible, and she supplements the system with specific generative rules. Others such as Prince (1989) and Schuh (1996) have continued to approach the analysis more universally. Prince emphasizes the importance of the metron, a phonological unit between the foot and the hemistich, and reconstitutes watid and sabab in the modern inventory of Strong and Weak components. Schuh investigates the kaamil and basiit meters to show that a more basic metric theory using the syllable as the metrical unit sufficiently accounts for the realizations of Arabic meter. Ultimately it is the work of Golston and Riad (1997), however, which best accounts for these meters. Their theory makes use of the metron level and shifts away 2 from formulations based on watid and sabab. The emphasis on binarity further establishes their clear and well-formulated account. Finally, the application of prosodic constraints CLASH and LAPSE to predict the four most commonly used meters is an example of this model’s superior explanatory potential. History The poems addressed in detail here are pre-Islamic and early Islamic, from a time when Arab society was predominantly tribal. Poetry was an integral and unifying part of the tribal culture as Alan Jones (1994) describes: “The poetry of a tribe was something that helped to differentiate it from other tribes. It was a projection into words of the life of the tribe, its solidarity and its aspirations, its fears and its sorrows....” (1). He further highlights poetry’s importance because of its ability to exist across time and space and writes, “[…] poetry had a quality not possessed by a tribe's worldly possessions. Land, camels, goods and chattels, even members of the tribe could be seized or destroyed by enemies, but as long as the collective memory survived, so would the tribe's poetry...”( 1). These poems were not epic narratives in the spirit of the Iliad or Mahabharata, but were shorter, lyrical descriptions of everyday life. In “Ancient Arabian Poetry,” Charles Lyall suggests that the Greek idyll is the closest approximation: The Arabian ode sets forth before us a series of pictures, drawn with confident skill and first-hand knowledge, of the life its maker lived, of the objects among which he moved, of his horse, his camel, the wild creatures of the wilderness, and of the landscape in the midst of which his life and theirs was set. (xviii) In achieving this significance, poems had one of four main purposes, with seven major themes. The purposes were: madih (‘panegyric’), hija' (‘lampoon’), ghazal (‘love’), and ritha (‘lament’), and themes: madih (‘panegyric’), hija' (‘lampoon’), ghazal (‘love’), ritha’ (‘lament’), waṣf 3 (‘description’), fakhr (‘self-glorification’), and hikma (‘wise sayings’) (Jones 1994: 2). As such, this poetry addressed a wide range of subjects in daily life with relevance and significance to the entire community. Orality is another crucial component of this poetry. Scholars did not begin recording these poems in writing until the middle of the 8th century C.E. Even today, the phrase used by poets remains qilt al-qasida (‘I uttered a poem’) and not katabt al-qasida (‘I wrote a poem’) (Monroe 1972: 13). At the time, poetry was experienced through shared recitations. Tribes gathered to hear rawi (‘reciters’). Rawi were known for their artistry, and poets who recite their work are compared to singing birds and their verses to birdsongs (Adonis 1990: 15). The relationship of the rawi and poet was also like that of an apprentice; rawi would often become poets in their own right, though this was not a required stage in becoming a great poet. Lyall writes, “The office of a rawi was not only to know the text of his master’s compositions, but also to be able to explain its allusions, to clear up its difficulties, and to relate the circumstances in which each poem was composed” (1885: xxxvi). Rawi preserved and transmitted the poetic corpus. Contributing to the unifying nature of these poems, orality also influenced their form. The poets, themselves largely illiterate, relied on an “instinctive sense of rhythm” in their composition (Monroe 1972: 13). Monroe further argues that there are many facets of pre-Islamic poetry which align with Albert Lord and Milman Parry’s critical analysis of oral composition. The use of formulae, which Parry defines as “a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea” (Lord 2000: 4), is a fundamental example. Monroe finds a high percentage of formulae within 5000 lines of early Arabic poetry. His findings are especially significant given that this percentage is about three 4 times higher than what he found in written poems composed much later. This suggests that the frequency of certain phrases is not merely related to the genre or subject matter, but more a result of the particular method of composition. Monroe also cites reports that Arab poets used bows and staffs during recitation for emphasis and possibly as a rhythmic aid. This external use of rhythm is crucial in oral composition, as Lord and Parry find with regard to the use of the stringed gusle in the Yugoslav oral epic. A further characteristic of oral poetry is its “fluidity and multiformity,” and, as R. Menedez Pidal writes, it is “a poetry that lives through variants” (Zwettler 1978: 189). Although early Arabic poems were short enough as to eventually lead to their memorization, pure memorization was not the primary means of expressing a poem, and different versions abounded. In collecting poems, medieval scholars often distrusted the different informants who recited slightly different versions of the poems (Monroe 1972: 10), but now there is a better understanding of the genre, with less emphasis on locating the ‘original.’ Monroe suggests approaching a poem as “probably not an exact recording of what a great poet once said, but a fairly close picture of it, distorted by the vicissitudes of an oral transmission in which both memorization and ‘de-paganization’ were operative and further complicated by a tradition of scribal correction” (1972: 41). With this approach in mind, I address two early Arabic poems in detail, both of which are from the same time period and composed in the same meter. The poets and their subject matters differ, and together these poems are a representative sliver of great early Arabic poetry.